What is the lowest time 170B model that is currently flying?

[CraigH]

Just curious if it might be mine. Total time is 1278 hours, but I was wondering if there were any lower?

[Joe Moilanen]

That is low! I wonder also who has the most? Mine's heading towards 6000 rather quickly!

Joe
4518C

[S&G Lynn]

I call your 6000 and raise you 300. 6300+

Scott Lynn
9277

[1SeventyZ]

Craig,

Where did you find that gem and where did it spend its life to accumulate so few hours?

[CraigH]

I found her in Hillsboro TX, but she spent most of her life in Washington, Montana and Arizona. She hasn't changed hands very often as I'm only the 6th owner.

What is really amazing is that the plane has been annualed each and every year of it's life. It's never sat completely idle either and has flown at least 20 hours every year. The airplane won Oshkosh back in 1998 in the 170/180 category.

I wasn't even looking for a 170 when she came along, just kind of stumbled into the deal. I was very actively persuing several RV-6 experimentals, but just hadn't found the right one yet.

[C170BDan]

Craig,

I found my 170 up in Denton back 10 years ago almost to this day. It had 1900 hrs. Seemed low to me at the time! Now it has 2400+ hrs. I met a 170 owner at Denton about a year ago and I think his '53 model had like 900 hrs. on it. Didnt the latest 170 magazine have a story about a guy that bought his with with under 1000 hrs.??

When I first saw yours, 3477D, I was shocked! A close relative to mine and suprised to see a low time original airframe/engine.

[ron74887]

Guys, I hate to tell you about high time--Bud Helmricks who went to pick his up in 52 at cessna and fly it home to alaska-- at the convention in Fairbanks had 18000 (that's right Thousand) with 18 engines and that was in 88 or 89 no telling how many now. 1200 is great for low time it's comparable to Ron Wolfe's A model. Ron

[S&G Lynn]

Wow! I wonder how many tire changes that is. I don't feel so bad now about my 6300.

Scott

[zero.one.victor]

I'm more impressed by high time than by low time. Having a low time airplane (& trying to keep it thataway) is like keeping Cinderella from going to the ball. They're made to fly and enjoy- so "just do it"!

Eric

[cessna170bdriver]

I'm more impressed by high time than by low time. Having a low time airplane (& trying to keep it thataway) is like keeping Cinderella from going to the ball. They're made to fly and enjoy- so "just do it"!

Eric

Eric, I couldn't agree more. I am in awe of any light airplane with more than 10,000 hours. It's especially impressive when you think that a fair number of those high time birds were/are trainers! I also marvel at the few DC-3's I have heard of with more than 100,000 hours, although I think those have had to be re-winged periodically.

Having said that, I have no idea what fatigue life (if any) Cessna designed into the 170, but if the 1000 hour one was't corroded from neglect and/or inoperation, I'd be more comfortable in it in 3G+ turbulence than the 18,000 hour one. Whether that would be a valid concern or not, I just don't know. I'm not aware of there ever having been an in-flight structural failure in a 170, but the thought crosses my mind occasionally, even in my 2700-hour airplane.

Miles

[Roesbery]

Been some C- 180-185s' around here with fatigue cracking of the upper wing skin at around 10,000 hrs. Be something to look for on high time planes.

[c170b53]

Can you be more specific on the location of the cracking?

[Roesbery]

As I remember the cracked skin was within about 18 inches of the strut attach point a bit aft and maybe a little outboard on top at a junction of three skins. Those wings have since been rebuilt, several years ago. But was told at the time by the rebuilder that he knew of others having the same problem at around the same time in service.

[Indopilot]

In our experience and seeing MAF aircraft with the same problem. Some cracks show up starting around 4-5 thousand Hrs as I remember it. The one I flew had repairs to the three middle ribs (top fwd corner between where they rivet to the skin and the fwd spar). outboard of the strut attach. As well as skin patches just aft of the fwd spar above the rib locations Brian

[GAHorn]

When an all metal wing is made, the single strut is possible. This is because the rigid all metal wing can form a "box" and the skin is stressed via the ribs and spars. When a single-strut wing like this fails due to high G-loading, the trailing edge outboard of the strut actually raises and the forward/leading edge twists downward. This has been observed on a few later 100 series Cessnas with higher gross weights that have been overloaded and pulled out of high-G manuevers (such as when they first sight the ground after pulling out of a steep spiral and exiting the clouds.)
So, it makes sense that severely stressed wings might begin to show cracks at that point.
Another place they suffer is the flaps where the flap support arms (B-models) attach and spread the load from the flap tracks to the flap itself. (This can also manifest itself at the linkage attach and hinge areas of the 170/170A models where loads are transferred, but not as common because those flaps don't carry the air loads of the larger flap.)
Outboard elevator hinges and bearing supports, vertical stabilizer attach angles (where those little NAS bolts attach) and the dorsal fin mounting/support bracket are also places that deserve regular inspection.
Aircraft with high operating times/history in patrol service probably suffer the most from cracks, with training aircraft running a close second. Mishandlhng the airplanes, especially tailfeathers, on the ground are high on the list of abusive practices.